We have mentioned several times1 that the books of the prophets do not figuratively ascribe to God anything that the multitude imagine to be a deficiency or that one cannot represent to oneself as belonging to Him, may He be exalted, even if these things have the same status2 as those that are figuratively ascribed to Him. For the things that are predicated of Him suggest to the estimative faculty certain perfections or can be imagined to be perfections with respect to Him. Accordingly, in view of this having been established, it behooves us to explain why hearing, sight, and the sense of smell are figuratively ascribed to Him, may He be exalted, whereas the sense of taste and that of touch are not.
Now the status of all five senses—with regard to the fact that He, may He be exalted, is high above them—is one and the same.3 And all the senses are a deficiency from the standpoint of apprehension. This is so even with regard to a being that only apprehends by means of the senses, for the latter are passive, receptive of impressions, intermittent, and subject to pain, as are all the other organs. The meaning of our saying that He, may He be exalted, has sight is that He apprehends the visible things, and that of our saying that He has hearing is that He apprehends the audible things. He could similarly have had the sense of taste [53b] and that of touch predicated of Him, and that could have been interpreted as meaning that He apprehends the things that are objects of the senses of taste and of touch. For the status of the apprehension of all of them is one and the same. If, however, the apprehension characteristic of one of the senses is denied Him, it would necessarily follow that the apprehensions characteristic of all of them4—I mean of all the five senses—should be denied Him. If, however, His having an apprehension characteristic of one of them—I mean an apprehension of what one of these senses apprehends—should be affirmed of Him, it would necessarily follow that He apprehends all the things apprehensible by the five senses.
Now we find that our books say, And the Lord saw,5 And the Lord heard,6 And the Lord smelled,7 but they do not say, And the Lord tasted, nor do they say, And the Lord touched. The cause of this is to be found in the fact that it is firmly established in everyone’s imagination that God does not encounter bodies in the way one body encounters another, for people do not even see it. Now these two senses, I mean the sense of taste and the sense of touch, do not apprehend the things sensed by them before they are in contact with them. On the other hand, the sense of sight, that of hearing, and that of smell, can apprehend from a distance the qualities sensed by them as well as the bodies that are the bearers of those qualities. It is, therefore, according to the imagination of the multitude, permitted to ascribe them to God. In addition, the purpose and the intent in figuratively ascribing to Him these senses are to indicate that He apprehends our actions. Now the sense of hearing and that of sight suffice for this; I mean hereby that by means of them everything that someone other than oneself does or says can be apprehended. Thus the Sages have said, when setting forth their admonitions by way of reproof and warning: Know what is above thee, a seeing eye and a hearing ear.8
Now when you investigate the true reality, you shall see that the status of all the senses is that of any one of them, and that from the same standpoint from which it is negated that He has apprehensions involving touch and taste, it should also be negated that He has sight, hearing, and the sense of smell. For all of them are apprehensions of a corporeal nature, affections, and changeable states. However, with regard to some of them, it is apparent that they are deficiencies, whereas others are deemed [54a] to be perfections; just as it is manifest that to imagine is a deficiency, whereas it is not manifest that to reflect and gradually to understand is likewise a deficiency. Therefore fancy,9 which word means imagination, is not figuratively ascribed to Him, whereas thought [maḥshabah] and comprehension [tebunah], which words mean reflection and understanding, are figuratively ascribed to Him. Thus it is said: Which [the Lord] thought;10 And with His comprehension He stretched out the heavens.11 Accordingly, the position with regard to the internal apprehensions is similar to that obtaining with regard to the external sensory apprehensions; some of the former as well as of the latter are figuratively ascribed to Him, while others are not. All this is according to the language of the sons of man. For they predicate of God what they deem to be a perfection in respect to Him and do not predicate of Him that which is manifestly a deficiency. When, however, the true reality is investigated it will be found—as shall be demonstrated—that He has no essential attribute12 existing in true reality, such as would be superadded to His essence.